The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-28
islatiop. and. having acted, Congress has ex-
haustad the suiact until II chooses TO again take

trial court. the Ar:orney-general said that he
did not zee how the personnel of the jury which
tried the petitioners in his case could properly be
submitted to the court or considered by il in the
present proceeding. This inquiry must be
IN ade as TO the constitutic1aity OF the jury law
of the State Of Illinois and not as TO how State
court may have construed that law The record
showed, he believed, that on the challenge or
one Juror a suggestion was made by one of the
counsel for the prisoners that there pro-
vision in the Constitution of lllinois-as we'll as
in the Constitution Of the United States-guar-
anteeing to every person trial by
bo.. nbssae. wss made
did not finally sit in the jury that tried the
case. He wound submit that. in order to give
the parties standing in court, the suggestion
or objection must have been made with regard
to a Juror who actually tried the case, or that,
by reason of the exhaustion of their peremptory
challenges, the petitioners were compelled to
accept incompetent juror. and were thereby
irreparably damaged. This question was never
raised with regard to any juror who did actually
sit in that case.
The Chief-justice-Was it not raised in San
ford's easel / think it is shown in the memo
randum which we have here that it was raised
to Sanford.
please, the memorandum is not fair transcript
of the record.
The Chief iustice-I understand that it is not
q complete record but believe 1t to be so stated
in this memorandum, which Is q part OF the
record
Mr. Grinnell then asked to have the transcript
ton extended. the question was raised only in
the case of Hanna, who did not, finally, sit on
the jury.
Captain Black-The transcript Of the record is
IN our possession 1t would have been subject
to your call at any time; and I will say to you
that you can have it and print anything
you wish.
The Chief justice then directed that all the
parts of the record relating to the question thus
raised should be printed and submitted to the
court tomorrow This ended the colioquy on
this point.
Attorney general Hunt. resuming. said that
the jury law OF the State of Illinois was not at
tackled by counsel on the other side in the State
Supreme Court They stated expressly (readine
from the proceedings) that I'VE have not
thought ir necessary to attack the constitution
atty of the law. because it may be given a con-
struction which would make 1t unob jectionable."
THE contention. l supposed, was" said the
Attorney general, THAT Judge Gary had given
TO the law a construction in violation of the Con
stirution believe it to be well settled and
established that this court will not review the
decision Of the Supreme Court of a State as to
the construction to be given to its own Constltu-
ton and its own laws The jury law of Illinois
has been the common law all over the United
States. and always. The provisions of the1aw OBJ
jected to this case have been IN the statute
book of the State for thirteen years. They have
been in the law of New York since 1872-73 and
Michigan about the same length OF time There
is some difference between the law or New
York and that of Illinois in the wording, but the
purpose is the same, and the constitutonality OF
the New York law was sustained in its highest
court of appeal There are substantially the
same laws in Arkansas, Colorado and Nebraska,
where they have also been sustained by the
highest State courts
The Encouragement then called attention
forciby to the fact that recent changes IN the
jury laws of the States ALI had for their purpose
and object the procurement Of a better class
and more intelligent class of men as jurors.
lis it possible" asked the Attorney gene ral,
''that the States to be so bound by the fed
eral Constitution that they cannot change their
jury laws in accordance with the changing
IF hal cia1 and Ya0li9 Ia
possible that whenever a law IS enacted In any
State which recognizes the changed condition of
affairs-a law which is intended TO adapt the
jury system such changed conditions
that federal question is raiseos Then
the conviction of any in a State
court raises federal question. and under the
unlimited provisions of tins fourteenth amend
ment that question can be brought to this court
for review. He hoped that the court would ma
turely consider the far-reaching consequences
of the construction which the petitioners de-
sired to have given to the fourteenth amend
ment mr. Tucker asks" said the Attorney
general. eff do not suppose that the four
teenth amendment guarantees trial uy jury.
1 suppose it does, but we hold that it was not
intended to interfere with the power OF a State
to regulate jury trial within its own limits pro-
vded it does not deprive anyone Of the equal
protection of the laws"
AS to the alleged unreasonable search and
seizures, it is said that after the prisoners had
the police. and papers. bombs, etc, were taken
out without a warrant The Attorney general
said he would like to know how a criminals in
struments of crime could legally be taken from
him He knew of no process by which it could
be done if they we're his own. The question for
the court. however, was not now was posses
s sn,hsr whas do thew proVo In the
recent case of ker against the people of
Illinois, Ker was followed to South America-to
Peru-was brought back. without extradition
proceedings and the court tried and convicted
him. 1t held that the question was not chow
did you get hereg but ARE you guiltyF This
was case involving higher question OF per
sonal right than that involved in the case now
before this court.
Justice Miler-The federal question was
whether the man having been kidnapped by the
Illinois authorities in Peru, without resort to
extradition papers. was protected by the federal
Constitution.
Attorney general Hunt-Yes, your Honor, but
it was on account of the illegal method by which
he had been brought into court that he claimed
immunity.
Attorney-general Hunt then took up the case
of the prisoners Fielden and Spies and said that
he understood il would be urged by counsel on
the other side that they, being for
eieners - Fielden an Enslishman and
between the United States and their respective
governments; that they should have immunity
because the treaties provided that citizens of
England and Germany living in the United
States should have all the rights and privileges
guaranteed by law TO citizens of the Q nted
States at the time the treaties were ratified II
understand" he said, that this will be the
tention"
The Chief Justice-In what respect is it said
that this violates the citizenship of Great Bril-
tain}
General Butier-They were to have all the
privileges of Americans at the date of the treaty
and among those privileges. we contend, was
trial by Jury under the laws then in force. No
laws could be passed to change their condition
under the organic law-the highest law
Attorney general Hunt replied that il this
were so, then the prisoners. without being citi-
zens were privileged persons. above the laws of
the State, which they set at defiance.
At this point the hour for the adjournment of
the court arrived and further argument was
postponed until tomorrow.
The large audience in the courtroom paid the
closest attention to- the proceedings throughout
the afternoon. and scores of persons. including
some ladies, remained standing for FIVE hours
just outside the bar.
The Attorney general of Illinois will conclude
his argument for the State to morrow, and will
be followed by General Butler in behalf of the
petitioners and particularly of Fielden and
Spies. Mr.. Griunell will probably make the
closing argument in opposition to the motion fo-